Daylight Savings Time adjustments — Can Microsoft make this any harder

Those of you that have been living under a rock probably don’t know that DST starts earlier and ends later this year, all in the name of saving energy. Talk about an inconvenient truth. As you might imagine, this has IT people in a snit such as hasn’t been seen since the end of 1999. Windows and Mac OSs will require updates to change their clocks on the right day. But the real trick is getting servers updated.

Here are several pages worth of directions if you are running Exchange servers to adjust your calendars accordingly. It isn’t a simple task.

Thoughts on Vista for the system builder channel

My latest article for Tom’s Hardware about what the channel needs to know about Windows Vista include these main points on why Vista can be more compelling than XP for the channel

  • VARs can tie in a hardware upgrade at the same time
  • VARs can get more profit from Vista machines since they will require more RAM and graphics horsepower
  • VARs can differentiate themselves in terms of service and support for Vista over earlier Windows OSs

I talk about what the real stats on recommended configurations should be and other issues in the article here.

When you come to a fork in the road, take it

Microsoft wants you to work the Web with Windows on your desktop. And that means if you are running anything besides Internet Explorer, you are going to have problems down the road.

Windows has become the best Internet OS. It just kills me, as I write this on my Mac running Firefox. If you want evidence of this, set up two equivalent PCs, or better yet, buy a Mac Core Duo and run both operating systems on the same box with one of the multi-boot options. Go out and surf the Web. And other than being infected with a bunch of spyware and toolbar download come-ons on Windows, you’ll find that pages load faster and you can get more work done on Windows.

Here are some other data points. I use Google’s Gmail as my main email application. On the Mac with either Firefox or Safari, it runs slower than on Windows with Internet Explorer. If I make use of OfficeLive to set up a Web site, I don’t have a choice. I must be running Windows/IE – that is the only way I can maintain my site and make use of the various “live” tools. (Forget about things like FTP.) The same situation is with Sharepoint, and LiveMeeting, and all sorts of other browser-based Microsoft applications. You need IE for this world-wide-Web thing. And if you need IE, you need Windows to run it.

I am finding that more and more of what I want to do with Microsoft requires me to be running Windows. I guess that has always been Microsoft’s no-so-secret plan — to do a better job than anyone else at making development tools and runtime environments for Internet applications. They have succeeded, even though the market share of IE has continued to slip over the past couple of years.

Take a look at what happened with Java on the desktop. Which desktop OS is the best Java environment, the most efficient place to code, the fastest performer? Windows! Microsoft took things seriously, and spent some time optimizing and extending Java so that it ran better on Windows. So what happened to Java being able to run everywhere? That’s so five minutes ago.

Now most people write their Java code on Windows development platforms, because wouldn’t you know Microsoft has some of the best development tools out there. So they code and test on Windows, and guess what? These apps run only Windows, and well, sometimes we’ll see a port over to Linux, and maybe we’ll get around to doing the Mac sometime next year if the customers yell enough.

Think of IE as the way Microsoft will move towards an all-Windows Internet OS. And it will get worse with IE7 and Vista.

IE7 should really be called XP/SP3, because it changes so much of the underlying Windows OS. It basically gets that XP desktop ready to do a few of things that Vista will bring to the table. And for those corporate customers that are testing Vista, they will have to formulate a browser transition strategy as well. The issue is not so much that people will want to run both browsers. It is that so much of our computing environment is now tied to a particular browser version — and now the Windows OS that runs that version.

First is the issue of infect-o-rama from IE versions past. All of us have seen good PCs go south with spyware, phishing sites, and who knows what. The average Windows user catches these demons just from surfing around the Web. (Not on my Mac, of course.) IE7 supposedly fixes this, by adding various security measures. I can’t tell you yet whether they really work, but let’s say they do.

Next is the issue that not all Web sites will appear correctly because IE7 changes enough things. After all these years of IE5/6 it is a big change and many things don’t work (yet, or will ever) in IE7. I can’t tell you the percentage, but I have heard anecdotal reports. So chances are, if you upgrade to IE7, you will need to use some other browser for these situations for the time being.

Third is that IE7 is only available for some Windows customers. You have to be running an updated and legal version of XP/SP2. You have to be willing to change your desktop over to IE7, because it isn’t easy to go back to IE6 once you have done the update.

Microsoft has already got this angle covered. They have developed a Virtual PC “appliance” (really, a disk image) that has XP/SP2 with IE6 all nicely bundled up together. You can download it for free here.

There are a couple of problems. First, you need XP Pro (not Home) to run Virtual PC. Second, you need a lot of spare disk space and oodles of RAM to set this up. Third, the disk image expires on April 1, so you better be done with your testing by then and ready to roll out IE7 into production. And while running IE6 in a virtual machine makes a lot of sense from a security standpoint, especially given all the security loopholes on IE, it still is a cumbersome way to test a new browser and does require a leap of faith that things will work on IE7. It might have been a better thing to create a disk image for XP/IE7 that doesn’t expire, and let people stick with IE6 on the regular portion of their PCs.

The problem is that customers are going to be buying new machines with Vista and IE7 already installed, so they are coming into your corporate house whether you like them or not. Microsoft has always said that the browser is part of the OS. We just weren’t really listening.

As Yogi Berra once said, “When you come to a fork in the road, take it.” Who knew that he was talking about Web browsers?

Frankston on Microsoft and Apple

I’ve know Bob Frankston for many years — Bob has been one of our industry’s original thinkers, and he even did a stint at Microsoft after helping to invent spreadsheets and many other pieces of software. He recently wrote me:

It’s unfortunate that Microsoft seems to be patterning itself after the world of the iPod in which the users are considered consumers rather than contributors.

The old Microsoft treated everyone as a developer but Microsoft’s intelligence-bearing genes are being winnowed out in a truly Dilbertesque process. I accidentally ran the Media Center instead of the Media Player and I was scared because that piece of pandering retro-TV crap seems to the bastard child of Ms. Bob and Clippie with a nauseating dose of DRM and PLH (Pretty Little Head — as in, don’t worry your PLH) obfuscation. I see Apple as being more sinister because pandering is so very cute. The scariest was watching a TV show about new technology including the kids first MP3 player – this poor girl was moving back and forth to the music as if in a trance — better opiate them when their young rather than risk them
becoming anything other than a passive receptacle for Jobs products. And poor Sony is sitting there wondering how they got beaten at their own game.

Get Me Graphics for Vista

The latest news about de-planetizing Pluto has got me bummed. In my misspent youth, the story about how Clyde Tombaugh discovered a planet was one of those moments that steered me towards science and technology, along with watching Mr. Spock fight Tribbles, decoding Clarke’s 2001, and trying out the experiments from Mr. Wizard. While I can understand the decision, it is a lot like telling Columbus that he landed on some Caribbean island instead of the U.S. of A.

Well, let’s not dwell on Pluto but move on to something else to get really depressed about. If you are considering getting more experience with the latest beta of Windows Vista, you will find that your graphics horsepower is woefully inadequate for running this operating system.

I have found from my tests that you will need a discrete graphics processor if you are going to have any kind of productivity with Vista at all. This is probably going to be most noticeable with your laptop, which traditionally has lagged behind desktops in terms of graphics firepower. Why is this important? Vista treats itself like one big video game, with pixel shaders, anti-aliasing, and the like. Everything on the screen is now considered a 3D polygon that can be manipulated by the OS.

While there are some obvious reasons for Microsoft to offer these enhancements as part of its OS, particularly for the gaming generation, there are some non-obvious ones as well. Aero — what the new Windows interface design is called — makes Vista more reliable by separating the screen drawing commands more completely from the applications control. Many of the crashes of XP were caused by this lack of separation, and one application stepping on another one’s screen real estate. The testing that I have done indicates that Vista will help fix these problems. But the fix comes at a high premium.

The wisest course of action is to wait and postpone buying any new graphics card until Vista ships next year. If you can’t wait, then make sure your card has at least 256 MB of on-board video memory, and see what your vendor says about supporting Direct X v10. This is what will guarantee Vista functionality. And if you are making a major PC buy, consider how you will deal with your video subsystem, and think about getting even more video RAM.

Yes, 256 MB of video RAM is going to be the starting place. That is a heck of a lot of RAM for a general business computer, and chances are most of your corporation’s PCs have far less installed.

I tested the hypothesis that having an add-in graphics processor is a necessary condition for running the latest beta 2 of Windows Vista, by testing two identically configured PCs, but one with a plug-in Nvidia GPU and the other using the Intel integrated graphics on the motherboard. I found that without the extra GPU, you are wasting your time and your own productivity. While the experience with an integrated graphics card is acceptable, it is borderline acceptable and most users will become easily frustrated over the limitations imposed by Vista on graphics-poor PCs when trying to run multiple applications. By multiple, I mean more than one: Vista runs a lot of stuff under the covers, much more than XP.

What this means is that users running the on-board Intel graphics will not get the performance and productivity gains that they would have with a discreet graphics card. Intel will try to obfuscate this message in the coming months, and the major PC vendors have already begun plastering “Vista-ready” logos all over their Web sites, but ignore these messages, and find out how much video RAM you can really afford and make sure you get a plug-in card and not anything onboard too.

On a new Dell that I bought about a month ago that was “Vista-ready” it came with a big 8 MB of shared video-RAM. Going into the BIOS, I could see that my choices were keeping this setting, or dropping the video RAM down to 1 MB. Some choice. You might have similar circumstances, if you even know how to fiddle with your BIOS, or download a new one that might help make further adjustments. As a result, Vista runs slowly on this PC, and I don’t see any of the 3D treats that I could have gotten had I installed a better video card.

Microsoft has this mickey-mouse assessment tool that will grade your system and tell you how it is expected to perform with Vista: don’t even bother with the download, because it is easy to game this tool and have it report just about anything.

I’ll have more to say about Vista in the coming months, but you might as well know the bad news now about the add-in graphics scene as you try to console yourselves about the whole Pluto thing.

Is Cisco vulnerable?

At Interop last week, Cisco CEO John Chambers spoke about how IT managers have to think three years ahead for planning their network infrastructure — “by the time it is obvious, it is too late” to plan for any changes to actually be implemented, he said during his keynote. He also mentioned the theme of “quad-play everywhere” meaning networks that support data, voice, video and mobility. (This is an upgrade from last year’s keynote, where mobility hadn’t yet made the cut and we were just dealing with the first three. Way to go on updating a tired metaphor, John.)

He spoke about these four-headed networks in your home, in Starbucks, and everywhere else, and how this will enable different business strategies and opportunities for networked IT. This is news? This is keynote-worthy?

This got me thinking. Before we can take that look ahead, it is instructive to take a look back three years and see where Cisco has come. It is a convenient time frame for me, because about three years ago I wrote a piece for VAR Business called “Is Cisco Vulnerable?”

My article opened with this thought:


The year 2003 may well be the beginning of the end of Cisco's world domination in the networking marketplace, according to VARBusiness reporting, industry analysts and Cisco competitors. The company has lost market share in the key service-provider sector to Juniper, and is lagging on key technology-innovation areas as well. It has demoted thousands of partners from Premier, Gold and Silver statuses -- partners who are finding out that there is life after Cisco and who are doing well selling products from competitors. And, to prop up its flagging stock price -- which hasn't been out of the teens for much of the past two years -- Cisco has had to cut margins and trim staff to keep costs in line.

Well, its stock price has climbed out of the teens and now is trading in the low 20s, so how about that? At this rate, they might pass Microsoft in about another ten years. But forget about all those disgruntled VARs from 2003, who are probably selling lots of non-Cisco stuff now and very happy. Forget about the layoffs and margin slicing too.

What Cisco has been doing the past three years is buying up lots of companies. Shortly after my article appeared in VAR, they did the deal acquiring consumer networking vendor Linksys.

So here is your assignment. Do you recognize any of these companies and can match up with the category of products (voice, video, security, wireless) that they develop? No cheating by checking online sources, this is a closed book test. Also, before any of you email me, I am sure that I am missing a few acquisitions here and there, so this isn’t a complete list.

In 2004: Riverhead Networks, Twingo Systems, Procket Networks, Actona Technologies, and Parc Technologies

In 2005: Airespace, BCN Systems, Jahi Networks, NetSolve, Perfigo, FineGround Networks, M.I. Secure Corporation, NetSift, Sipura Technology, Topspin Communications, and Vihana

And in 2006: KiSS Technology, Nemo Systems, Sheer Networks, Cybertrust’s Intellishield Alert Manager, Digital Fairway Corporation, Scientific-Atlanta, SyPixx Networks

Now, granted these aren’t exactly household names, with two possible exceptions: Scientific Atlanta, which makes set-top boxes; and Airespace, which makes managed wireless networks.

But what it is interesting about this list is the lack of the leading edge. Look at what Microsoft and Google were buying over the past three years. Is there a Ray Ozzie or Vint Cerf-equivalent that we can point to at Cisco?

So here are the questions I would have asked Chambers, had I had the opportunity:

  1. While Cisco is still profitable and has the lion’s share of many markets, they continue to move away from being the technology innovator. So prove me wrong, John: let’s list products from each of these acquisitions above that are still sold by Cisco and can demonstrate that leadership.
  2. Are the remaining Cisco Gold and Platinum VARs still as unhappy as they were three years ago? What have you done to turn the tide with your channel? And show me where having Linksys can complement this strategy, too.
  3. Speaking of which, Linksys has largely been left alone as an independent business unit, which is probably for the best. I don’t see much evidence of any product synergy between them and the mother ship. Did I miss something?
  4. The past three years haven’t seen much price erosion in core Cisco products: instead, we continue to see price increases to keep up with features and functionality found in less-costly competitors. And as the gap widens, there is more opportunity for the second tier to take market share away from Cisco.

IE7 Active-X woes

Some interesting things coming from Microsoft, regarding the next version of Internet Explorer. Thanks to Jeffrey Joslin for this collection of links.

  1. First, we have this IE6 EOLAS Active-X overhaul issue, regarding a long-standing patent litigation that has resulted in Microsoft on the losing end.
  2. Then the IE7 CSS standards overhaul issue here on an MSDN blog posting
  3. Third party initial reaction
  4. More third party updated reaction now with less doomsday fears

Yet more reasons to leave Active X behind.

Open APIs, continued: Not Microsoft!

Yesterday’s keynote address by His Billness made it crystal clear. Microsoft isn’t going anywhere with opening any APIs for its Web programming. See some excellent reporting by Scott Fulton at my old haunt here:


The question was literally shouted at him, will you open your API the way Google does? The answer is no. ... For the first time in years, other players are setting the rules, and Microsoft is choosing not to play by those rules. All of a sudden, Microsoft finds itself the outsider, the holdout, the would-be up-and-coming player, and Bill Gates finds himself playing the role of the conservative stalwart, resistant to change, impervious to the winds of history.

Today, we learned that Vista isn’t going anywhere, either. At least not this year.

The End of Active X and the Microsoft Internet

Microsoft’s attempts to take control over dynamic Web content are officially over. My proclamation comes after hearing from Marty Focazio, who works for ScribeStudio.com. The company offers a service for users to quickly create, package and publish their own dynamic content, such as e-Learning Programs, video seminars and multimedia presentations.

Marty is just one of many people that changing their Web sites over from Active X and popups to display dynamic and interactive content. I’ll let him explain.

While I was not here when that decision was made, I am faced with dealing with the downstream effects of having a service that won't run on Firefox, occasionally requires the installation of an Active-X control, is Mac-hostile and requires people to explicitly allow pop-ups. So what's the alternative? In a word, Ajax.

In many ways, we have to go Ajax, just to reach our corporate customers, because we're seeing flat-out bans on Active-X, a pretty substantial move away from IE, and an increasing number of Mac systems. Not to mention that a site that uses unrequested pop-ups, whether it's our own or the US Postal Service, can't be around that much longer. So we're fixing these issues. It's not pleasant and it's not fun.

The reasons for the use of Active-X and Pop-ups were essentially that the user needed to be able to interact with the server and stored data in a way that wasn't really possible without Active-X, or at least not to the level of interaction that's more like a "local" application, in terms of things you can do with the data on your computer and on the web server.

For example, we have a really nice text editor - word processor, really, that is pretty much the same as the Writely product Google recently bought. But again, that's an Active-X control, not an Ajax-y thing, so that's gotta go. That's the root of the issue -- our application lets people create online versions of their courses, events and presentations, and there's a huge amount of data interaction involved, so the ability to extend the user's computer into our servers and vice versa is at the heart of the matter.

In the end, it's kind of the whole "network is the computer" model that's making Ajax compelling for us. Yeah, that's old news, but when you treat a web browser as a "sandbox" for your application, and you have what feels like live data interaction, you can begin to do what Java promised and never delivered. Instead of slow-loading, jerky applets with annoying interfaces and horrendously pokey jsp servers, with Ajax like development, I have a "never stop writing, run almost anywhere" environment which is less sexy than "Write once, run anywhere" but is more pragmatic and fits the reality of the market.